[Fedora-packaging] Re: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Sat Nov 3 10:46:01 UTC 2007

Le samedi 03 novembre 2007 à 11:05 +0100, Patrice Dumas a écrit :
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > 
> > Le vendredi 02 novembre 2007 à 20:09 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
> > 
> > > Yes, please no legacy font system crap.
> > 
> > Documented in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy
> I don't exactly understand the full story, but what is exactly a core
> font?

Anything that uses the old server-side X backend. I didn't name it,
blame XFree86 people ;)

>  It seems to me that mkfondir and xfs are not really needed
> anymore. I have a package (libdockapp) that ships some bitmap fonts. Is
> it the same? In this package I have a link in 
> /etc/X11/fontpath.d/
> linking to the font directory.

That's the Core fonts XFDL backend, yes.

> Is there an issue with this type of
> fonts (called along luxel-ascii-06x09.pcf.gz seg7-ascii-05x07.pcf.gz)?

The only "issue" as explained in the policy is the Core Fonts backend is
pretty much unmaintained now, and got abandoned by XFree86 developpers
because of numerous unfixable problems, so when you feed it new fonts
you play with fire.

You break something or trigger an old bug you get to keep the pieces
because you won't find a lot of people ready to help.

I'd have though Behdad's reaction was clear (and he's our leading font

> I run fc-cache in this package scriptlets, although I am not sure that
> it is useful.

I find it terrifying that every packager of legacy fonts I've talked
with so far has no clue if the directives he puts in his spec actually
work or why. It's always blind copy paste of old specs and if you copy
enough stuff things sort-of work.

Please get together and write guidelines for legacy font packaging (with
scriptlets you actually understand). I've wrote it before and write it
here again: I have zip interest in legacy fonts. I recognise it's font
stuff some Fedora users need, so the Fonts SIG wiki will host any
properly-written legacy fonts policy. But I won't write it for you. I've
investigated this stuff enough years ago to decide it's a radioactive
dead-end, if someone wants to keep risking it more power to him, but
that's on his head.

The general SIG policy as expressed in
is that new font packagers should not even consider the legacy backend,
people dead-set on using it can (that's why it's a SHOULD NOT not MUST
NOT) but we tell them explicitely it's a very bad idea.


Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20071103/a8ab714d/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list